Lockheed L-1011 Tristar 1 in 1/400 Scale

Updated: May 2017

The Tristar marked Lockheed's return from its commercial exile since the ill-fated Electra. The aircraft was easily the most technologically advanced of the three initial widebodies but this led the programme into massive cost overruns and technical issues, not to mention the near collapse of its only engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce. Due to all these issues and delays the programme was overtaken by the less advanced but simpler DC-10, which to add insult to injury had engine manufacturers that could afford to invest in new engines giving the DC-10 a range advantage over the Tristar that wasn't closed until it was far too late. In the end only 250 Tristars (of all variants) were built, however large orders from Delta, TWA, Eastern, British Airways and All Nippon meant the Tristar remained an important type well into the 1990s.

Full Length Tristars in 1/400 Scale

Considering the comparitive attention the 747 and especially the DC-10 have received the Tristar is under-represented in 1/400 scale, or at least is massively under-represented on passable moulds. There have been 4 attempts at a standard length L-1011 but more than 75% of the models made have been on the worst mould available. Even more painful the best mould (in fact one of the best in 1/400 period) has only been used for 11 examples - none in the colours of keystone operators of the type. In fact along with the 757 and MD-80 the Tristar has probably been the most poorly served major jet airliner of the 70s onwards in this scale. It is a crying shame and one that doesn't seem likely to be rectified anytime soon sadly. Anyway here is the output of the manufacturers to date. There hasn't been a new Tristar release for years:

NOTE: This review does not cover the shorter Tristar 500, which will be dealt with separately.

Full Length Tristar Variants

The Tristar was continuously upgraded throughout its production as Lockheed attempted to ring more range out of the baseline model without having to make major changes. Even so all full length Tristars look very similar from the outside. The L-1011-1, -100, -50 and -150 all are basically the same from the outside, indeed the latter two were conversions of existing series 1s. The later series 200 also has basically an identical airframe but with upgraded Rolls Royce RB211-524Bs (rather than RB211-22s) and a modified middle engine fuselage join (see the images below). The Tristars delivered to Pacific Southwest had additional changes as they were fitted with an entry hall in the lower baggage area that led to a lounge. From the outside this involved an obvious belly addition. Check out my blog entry on PSA Tristars for further details - Smiling Widebodies: PSA's Tristar Gamble

Above - a Tristar 1; and below a Tristar 100

Note the different middle engine / fuselage connector of the L-1011-200 as displayed below by this Air Lanka example:

It should be noted that nobody in 1/400 scale has attempted to create a Tristar 200 mould, which isn't too surprising as only 24 were built. The PSA releases also do not faithfully detail the extra underbelly lounge additions either.

Tristar 1-100 Moulds in 1/400

So let's take a look at the moulds, as always, in date order.

Gemini Jets (1999-2004)

Gemini were first to market with a Tristar 1 mould but rather failed to take advantage of their lead and only ever produced 20 models using it. Another was re-released as a Schuco and Sovereign made a single Gulf Air example. Sovereign was apparently a Gibraltar based company, which used Gemini and SMA moulds to make mainly aircraft that visited Heathrow in the 1980s. They only ever made 19 models (mostly DC-9s) and this Tristar was their only one. I think Black Box may have also commissioned an Eastern Tristar too. This was one of Gemini's first moulds and a couple of the earliest examples have incredibly rudimentary landing gear legs - sometimes without any nosegear doors too. That's a shame as the mould itself is not bad. Despite its age the paucity of good Tristars means some of these (ANA and Cathay especially) can still go for very good $$ if you can find them.

Gemini Jets Tristar Nose

Gemini Jets Tristar Tail

Nose - Generally this is a decent representation. The cockpit windows are often printed too large and the nose is not quite round enough but it captures the Tristar's feel for me. The intake vent detailing is too small also and unsurprisingly for an early mould the gear is simple and the attachment point not great. The seam at the wing joint follows the real thing's curves but doesn't fit well and is a bit obvious. Still it's pretty good - 3.5/5

Tail - Early Geminis are plagued by seams and the Tristar mould is no different with a really obvious one under the horizontal stabiliser. Gemini would get rid of these as it modified its moulds but since the Tristar didn't get any use after 2004 they didn't bother with it. The shape of the tail seems ok but the tail join is unsightly and the sculpting around the middle engine at the front sides is incorrect. The exhaust is the worst part. It is clearly missing a bit and doesn't look like its fits the mould well, plus the shape of what is there is wrong - 2/5.

Dragon Wings (1999-2001)

There's obviously something about the Tristar as Dragon, who usually made a decent range with their moulds, used their own Tristar mould only 6 times! They did at least use it to make some examples Gemini never did, in fact there is almost no overlap (aside from a Cathay example). This does mean however you stand no chance of ever standardising your Tristar fleet. This mould is inferior to the Gemini at the nose end but superior at the tail end. It is also seamless, which is a big plus. Dragon's lack of use of it is puzzling and infuriating.

Dragon Wings Tristar Nose

Dragon Wings Tristar Tail

Nose: Ok though not as good as the Gemini. The nosecone is too short and pointy and the printed grill by the nosegear too large. The gear itself is your typical Dragon simplistic gearleg and doesn't fit well (though I admit in the photo it appears to be the wrong way round) On my Caledonian they've printed the cockpit windows too low too - 3/5

Tail: No seams on such an early mould is commendable and generally the tail unit is great. The curves around no2 engine work well (though they are still not correct) and the exhaust is fully complete (though the ends aren't quite right) - 4/5

Blue Box (2005-2007)

Who exactly Blue Box were is rather lost in the sands of time. They were one of a number of brand names used by somebody with access to a 747-200 mould and were associated also with other fly by night brands such as Netmodels, C&C and Magic. They did however strike out on their own with a Tristar mould and were prolific. Not only that but Jet-X also used this mould quite widely too. This is a shame as the mould is sub-standard and yet its existence has been used as a reason for the Tristar not being tackled seriously since by anybody else. This is a major disappointment as even if the Blue Box mould was any good it was produced in only small runs per model and they are hard to find. One innovation for this mould is that the engines come with removable engine covers. Basically if you have an at all representative collection of Tristars you're going to have to bite the bullet and accept this mould. Having said that I doubt there is anyone who wouldn't get rid of them ASAP if a new Tristar was made.

I should also note that Blue Box had a silly tendency to also release chrome and gold plated versions of some of the models. God knows who wanted one of these!

Blue Box Tristar Nose

Blue Box Tristar Tail

Nose - A bit of a mess. The nosecone is clearly too short and blunt and it often looks like the cockpit windows are sliding down to meet it. It does have the best gear so far but that's to be expected given the younger age of the mould and the nosegear doors are still the wrong shape - 2/5

Tail: Oh dear the no2 engine is slab sided almost and the mould has a weird tail/fuselage join line not present in the real thing. The exhaust is the best yet and has a correct flat end but that can't save the mould - 2/5

Witty Wings / Aviation 400 (2007-2014)

The last best chance for the Tristar was from the unlikely source of the Witty factories. Some of their moulds appear to be rip offs of others (707 for example), whilst others are just middling (DC-10, 727) but the Tristar is along with their 747-200 their crowning achievement. It is quite shocking and appalling therefore that it got used a total of 11 times before Witty stopped production in 2014. Let's face it the collectorate want Tristars, this mould exists and is awesome and yet we can't get any made. I believe since Witty's end all their moulds have gone into the huge back catalogue owned by JC Wings. Whether any ever find their way out nobody knows, but it isn't looking promising. Most of Witty's production was under their Aviation 400 brand and the output consists of a really random selection of obscure airlines like Air Ops! Only the Saudia release could be said to be a major Tristar operator. This is the last of a series of missed opportunities for the Tristar and possibly the worst example of waste I can remember in this scale.

Witty Tristar Nose

Witty Tristar Tail

Nose: Looks great to me though there is perhaps a bit of a forehead not helped by the nose wheel being slightly too small (a la Aeroclassics). Missing the scallop intake and the gear doors appear wrong again but overall commendable - 4/5

Tail: Graceful curves reproduce the real look very well. In fact this is the only mould to get the middle engine anywhere near correct. The exhaust looks good too though it isn't quite as square as it ought to be. - 4/5